Share This Page

Challenges made to two candidates' campaign petitions in Monroeville, Pitcairn

| Wednesday, March 27, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Two campaign petitions filed by Monroeville and Pitcairn candidates were challenged this month by their political opponents.

A petition submitted by Monroeville Council candidate Tom Wilson was challenged by Carolyn Ramsey, who is Wilson's Ward 7 opponent in the May 21 primary. Both are filed as Democrats.

Ramsey challenged that Wilson's statement of financial interest is “defective,” according to county records.

Wilson said Monday that he accidentally omitted a number of items from his petition, not realizing they were required.

“If I would've read the information on the form, I probably would've realized it,” Wilson said.

Information that was omitted included his seat on the Monroeville personnel board and his former seat on the Monroeville Redevelopment Authority. Wilson said he intends to resign from the personnel board if elected. The redevelopment authority was dissolved in 2012 before the group could facilitate any development in Monroeville.

In Pitcairn, council incumbent Rollo Vecchio challenged a petition submitted by Democratic candidate James Rullo, claiming the financial interest statement was filed after the deadline.

Rullo is on the Pitcairn Zoning Board but said he is new to the election process. He said he filed his financial interest statement with Allegheny County on time, but accidentally missed the deadline at the borough building.

“Being a beginner, I had no idea when everything had to be in,” Rullo said. “I turned it in a day later.”

Common Pleas Court Judge Joseph James was scheduled to rule on both challenges March 27, after this paper's deadline. For an update, see www.yourmonroeville.com.

Kyle Lawson is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 8755, or klawson@tribweb.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.